Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 2nd June 2019, 03:35 AM

Norman, Im no expert on these things, I agree with you on the general crisp feel of the engraved numbers and wolf.
For me there is a crispness which seems to characterize the sword overall, which though very attractive, seems to have curiously combined elements.
These discs in the hilt guard remind me of similar seen on some Spanish, Italian and even Portuguese 'navigator' swords of 16th into early 17th c.

The striated escutcheon on the crossguard reminds me of similar features on some 18th c. smallswords. However all of these elements I cannot locate presently, it just seems I have seen them.

In the same way this resembles a mid 17th c. spadroon/rapier (plate VI, #22, "Schools and Masters of Fence", Egerton Castle, 1885) with simple guard system though not quite same, but pommel seems similar.

Returning to the engraved numbers etc. these seem inconsistent with these 'magical' themes which were popular in early to mid 17th c. These were not dates, but numbers with magic properties. It seems to me the '1' should be with serifs, and the other '1' seems intended to resemble a magic glyph or sigil which were often interpolated into inscriptions and sometimes numbers.
The 'anchor' seems unusually simple and atypical.
The wolf is of course similar to most examples seen and configured OK, but as these were freely chiseled rather than stamped, variation is expected.

The lenticular blade seems unusual, with blocked ricasso, for 17th c.
The wrap is remarkably crisp and sound, the turks heads seem cast?
Wire wrap of these periods seldom survives intact, examples I have had and seen almost always have this at least somewhat unraveled.

As I say, Im no expert, and pictures don't really give adequate feel for the actual item. You seem hesitant to declare this 17th c. and I am inclined to think it is possibly a 'historismus' item of 19th? The strange combination of elements etc. is my reason.
I hope I am wrong, and will be proven so, but I just have to be honest in my thoughts. To me its still a very attractive sword, and 19th c. weapons of these types are antiquities in their own right.

2nd June 2019, 03:35 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,738	Norman, Im no expert on these things, I agree with you on the general crisp feel of the engraved numbers and wolf. For me there is a crispness which seems to characterize the sword overall, which though very attractive, seems to have curiously combined elements. These discs in the hilt guard remind me of similar seen on some Spanish, Italian and even Portuguese 'navigator' swords of 16th into early 17th c. The striated escutcheon on the crossguard reminds me of similar features on some 18th c. smallswords. However all of these elements I cannot locate presently, it just seems I have seen them. In the same way this resembles a mid 17th c. spadroon/rapier (plate VI, #22, "Schools and Masters of Fence", Egerton Castle, 1885) with simple guard system though not quite same, but pommel seems similar. Returning to the engraved numbers etc. these seem inconsistent with these 'magical' themes which were popular in early to mid 17th c. These were not dates, but numbers with magic properties. It seems to me the '1' should be with serifs, and the other '1' seems intended to resemble a magic glyph or sigil which were often interpolated into inscriptions and sometimes numbers. The 'anchor' seems unusually simple and atypical. The wolf is of course similar to most examples seen and configured OK, but as these were freely chiseled rather than stamped, variation is expected. The lenticular blade seems unusual, with blocked ricasso, for 17th c. The wrap is remarkably crisp and sound, the turks heads seem cast? Wire wrap of these periods seldom survives intact, examples I have had and seen almost always have this at least somewhat unraveled. As I say, Im no expert, and pictures don't really give adequate feel for the actual item. You seem hesitant to declare this 17th c. and I am inclined to think it is possibly a 'historismus' item of 19th? The strange combination of elements etc. is my reason. I hope I am wrong, and will be proven so, but I just have to be honest in my thoughts. To me its still a very attractive sword, and 19th c. weapons of these types are antiquities in their own right. Last edited by Jim McDougall; 2nd June 2019 at 03:58 AM.